Evidence Hub

A Cohort Study on Prognostic Factors for Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy Success in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma

L. Di, Christopher P. Wang, Ashish H. Shah, D. Eichberg, Alexa Semonche, Alexander D Sanjurjo, E. Luther, W. Jermakowicz et al.

Neurosurgery, 2021

20 participants · 31 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is a promising approach for cytoreduction of deep-seated gliomas. However, parameters contributing to treatment success remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To identify extent of ablation (EOA) and time to chemotherapy (TTC) as predictors of improved overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS) and suggest laser parameters to achieve optimal EOA.

METHODS

Demographic, clinical, and survival data were collected retrospectively from 20 patients undergoing LITT for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM). EOA was calculated through magnetic resonance imaging-based volumetric analysis. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression were used to examine the relationship between EOA with OS and PFS accounting for covariates (age, isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) mutation, O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase hypermethylation). The effect of laser thermodynamic parameters (power, energy, time) on EOA was identified through linear regression.

RESULTS

Median OS and PFS for the entire cohort were 36.2 and 3.5 mo respectively. Patient's with >70% EOA had significantly improved PFS compared to ≤70% EOA (5.2 vs 2.3 mo, P = .01) and trended toward improved OS (36.2 vs 11 mo, P = .07) on univariate and multivariate analysis. Total laser power was a significant predictor for increased EOA when accounting for preoperative lesion volume (P = .001). Chemotherapy within 16 d of surgery significantly predicted improved PFS compared to delaying…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free